Jesse Ventura on Health Care

Former Independent MN Governor

Treat anyone: the doctor issue us a human right

Are we that selfish a nation where health care can be such a divisive issue? Where is mainstream America today? To me, the doctor issue us a human right. I don't care if you're an illegal alien or whatever, if you're sick you should be able to have
treatment. It amazes me that we've got people out there holding signs and making our president look like a Nazi, because he supports a change in the system. Here's another point:
If government-run health care is so bad, does that mean we've been screwing over our veterans for close to a hundred years? My father would go nowhere else but to the Veteran's Administration hospital.
The one here in Minnesota is state-of-the-art, brand-new, and completely government-run, and I don't see anyone protesting about that! If it's good enough for the veterans, shouldn't it be the same for all of us?

Individual responsibility for unhealthy lifestyle choices

Individual citizens must play a much larger role in their own health. People should have a greater array of choices and a larger say in how health services are delivered. And we all must take more responsibility for the choices we make about health
risk behaviors. The choices we make matter profoundly when it comes to health care. Lifestyle choices directly determine a large percentage -- maybe even the majority -- of all health care spending. A health system built for the future needs to promote
and reward healthy choices. We must also become more mindful of how we use health care services. The “entitlement” mindset for many people today is to demand and use health care services without regard to cost because they feel it is
their “due”... All of us need to understand the economic stake we have in the overall consumption of health services. If we all shared more of the economic responsibility, we’d probably also demand better value for our investment.

Source: The Big Plan: Self-Sufficient People
, Dec 10, 2000

Focus on prevention, children, and results

There are still too many uninsured Minnesotans, including approximately 70,000 children. The uninsured either go without care and compromise their health, or they get care in the most uneconomical ways -- ultimately paid for by insured citizens and
taxpayers. Not only is this system uneconomical, but it is increasingly fragile, with the safety net at risk of collapse as health care institutions are financially squeezed.

We need a broad-based community dialogue in order to develop a common view
of what we want out of our health system, and more consensus about how to get it. The health system must invest more heavily in and reward prevention, not just treatment. We must help refocus the system on producing better health
status for all Minnesotans, not just on producing more and costlier services that fewer and fewer people can afford. We need a vision of a new health system built not for the last 50 years, but for the next 50 years.

Source: The Big Plan: Self-Sufficient People
, Dec 10, 2000

Supports “Minnesota Care”; tax to pay for uninsured

I believe that it’s the government’s job to step in when an individual can’t afford his or her own health care. We have a pretty decent system here in Minnesota, called Minnesota Care. It pays the medical bills for people who can’t afford them with money
that it raises from a small tax on everybody else’s medical bills.

But the more we as a society can do on the end of prevention, the less any of us will have to spend on medical care. We need to make better choices regarding our health.

Source: Do I Stand Alone, by Jesse Ventura, p.139
, Jul 2, 2000

No national care, but pure capitalism can’t work

I don’t support nationalized health care. I think any time you get a system where there’s only one provider, you get corruption. Competition creates better service and keeps prices down.

By its very nature, medical care can’t be a purely capitalist
venture. If it becomes only about making money, we get to the point where we’re messing with people’s lives and health just to make a buck. We do need to have some kind of regulation or watchdogging system in place to keep HMOs from getting out of hand.

Source: Do I Stand Alone, by Jesse Ventura, p.138-9
, Jul 2, 2000

Comment “suicides are weak” meant “don’t encourage them”

I’m not disparaging suicides when I call them weak, I’m pointing out that anybody who would consider doing a thing like that needs help. I don’t think a normal, mentally healthy person commits suicide. Of course, there are exceptions; people who are
terminally ill are a different issue. But in the vast majority of cases, suicide is a tragedy that does unbelievable damage to the family and friends the suicide leaves behind. You don’t want to encourage people to do such a thing.

Source: Ain’t Got Time To Bleed, p.291
, Jan 1, 1999

Government interference should be kept to a minimum

Government interference should be kept to a minimum. The government and insurance companies should not be telling physicians how to practice. What works for some may not work for others. If there are cases
where a new treatment works, by curing a patient or adding significant amounts of time to their life, the treatment may no longer be experimental.

Minnesota Care has been good for the children in our state.
We should make stronger efforts to identify the children who are eligible to be in the system, but are currently without healthcare. The State should also be paying for immunization shots for children to immunize
them against communicable diseases such as chicken pox, whooping cough and the flu.

Premise of the tobacco lawsuit wrong; it punishes victims

The entire premise of the tobacco lawsuit was wrong. Minnesota has been taxing the tobacco industry for years. Instead of banning the tobacco, we continued to make money by taxing it, while we sued the companies for the physical harm the tobacco caused.
When the case was settled, the tobacco companies promptly raised their prices to an amount that allowed them to make even more money. The end result is that the persons who are addicted to tobacco, the victims, are now paying for the settlement.

In regard to the actual settlement, I believe the money should be spent on programs that will help prevent people from ever starting to smoke, some that will assist people to stop smoking and some that will provide healthcare assistance
to those who are physically suffering from the effects of smoking.

No federal pre-emption of employee health plan regulation.

Ventura adopted the National Governors Association position paper:

The Issue

In 1999, 42.6 million Americans did not have health insurance. All states have been fervently working to reduce the number of uninsured Americans, to make health insurance more affordable and secure, and to provide quality health care at a reasonable cost to the uninsured. However, the federal government has also expressed an interest in this issue. Any action taken at the federal level could have serious implications for traditional state authority to regulate the health insurance industry and protect consumers.

NGA’s Position

Although the Governors are extremely sensitive to the concerns of large multi-state employers, the fact remains that the complete federal preemption of state laws relating to employee health plans in the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is the greatest single barrier to many state reform and patient protection initiatives.

The Governors support efforts designed to enable small employers to join together to participate more effectively in the health insurance market. In fact, Governors have taken the lead in facilitating the development of such partnerships and alliances. However, these partnerships must be carefully structured and regulated by state agencies in order to protect consumers and small businesses from fraud and abuse and underinsurance. NGA opposes attempts to expand federal authority under ERISA. The Governors have identified the prevention of such federal legislation in the 107th Congress as a top legislative priority.

States have the primary responsibility for health insurance regulation. Across the nation, Governors are working to protect consumers and patients and to properly regulate the complicated health insurance industry.

Maintain Medicare funding of HMO benefits.

WHEREAS, Medicare premiums paid to Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) are set at 95% of the current fee-for-service Medicare spending on residents of the county where the HMO is to be offered; and

WHEREAS, The lack of readily accessible medical care in some areas results in lower utilization of medical services and lower Medicare spending; and

WHEREAS, The combination of the Medicare HMO premium formula and differences in medical care service utilization results in fewer medical benefits for many Medicare HMO participants in rural, and other low medical care utilization areas; and

WHEREAS, Medicaid will likely be used to fill the coverage gap in these areas, requiring additional state money; and

WHEREAS, Language in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act was designed to address these inequities; now therefore be it,

RESOLVED, That the Midwestern Governors’ Conference encourages Congress to continue its effort to address these inequities, and to resist efforts to reverse the changes made to Medicare HMO premiums in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

Protect state tobacco settlement funds from federal seizure.

Ventura adopted a letter to Congressional leaders from 53 Governors:

As you know, preserving and protecting the state tobacco settlement funds is the nation’s Governors’ highest priority. We strongly urge you to reach final agreement and pass the conference report on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill soon, and to retain the Senate provision that protects our settlement funds from federal seizure.

Many of our state legislatures are currently in session, and some have already completed work on their budgets. Therefore, it is critical that conferees reach agreement quickly on this issue. Governors are unified in their commitment to ensuring that the funds remain in the states and that there be no restrictions on states’ ability to tailor spending to meet the needs of their citizens.

We offer our strongest support for conferees to recede to the Senate version of the bill containing the Hutchison/Graham bipartisan tobacco recoupment protection legislation.